We thank Megan Murray for excellent research assistance and William Adams (Urban Institute) for invaluable aid with institutional details.
1740-1461/asset/JELS_left.gif?v=1&s=19c48a9cf9a24107547fae4fba241675f19a6ab5)
1740-1461/asset/JELS_centre.gif?v=1&s=852095d9d5ce1295381ad7dae609cdf2d4b6a32a)
1740-1461/asset/JELS_right.gif?v=1&s=5956eb22c4ac82deed3c989a43d3935e4de9d461)
Judicial Discretion and Sentencing Behavior: Did the Feeney Amendment Rein in District Judges?
Article first published online: 10 MAY 2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01181.x
© 2010 Cornell Law School and Wiley Subscription Services, Inc.
Additional Information
How to Cite
Freeborn, B. A. and Hartmann, M. E. (2010), Judicial Discretion and Sentencing Behavior: Did the Feeney Amendment Rein in District Judges?. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7: 355–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01181.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 10 MAY 2010
- Article first published online: 10 MAY 2010
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
This research studies the impact of changes to judicial discretion on criminal sentencing outcomes. The 2003 Feeney Amendment restricted federal judges' ability to impose sentences outside of the Sentencing Guidelines and required appellate courts to review downward departures. Using data on all federal sentences between 1999 and 2004, we show that the amendment reduced downward departures by 5 percent. Controlling for characteristics of the crime and the offender, we find that the Amendment increased average prison sentences by about two months. There is no evidence that judges adjusted offense levels or criminal history in order to circumvent the Amendment.